Hydrogen inside Air Intake increases Gas Mileage?


Nexagen
07-24-2007, 04:29 AM
I've come across a website that has a product that uses plain water and then through the process of electrolysis seperates Hydrogen molecules from water (brown's gas) using a 12 Volt DC current to "bubble" the water so that the hydrogen gas is then extracted from the water and gets sucked into the air intake of a car.

Hydrogen is 3X more powerful than gas and it gives it a boost... like NOS but increases gas mileage and gives it more power.

I've seen many youtube videos like this one where salt water can burn efficiently.

http://www.youtube.com/v/h6vSxR6UKFM

It burns because it is using Hydrogen to burn from the water.

The tube that you would put in your car would be alot like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Md8-wvV2jHM

And two electrodes are put inside to start the process.

What do you all think about using this?

http://savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/

They have different sizes and it connects to your air intake so your intake sucks in hydrogen and then the hydrogen burns inside the engine. Worth the money?

Nexagen
07-24-2007, 04:33 AM
This video shows how it works better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdyaNmRtUto

Moppie
07-24-2007, 05:44 AM
I hope you realise how much energy is required to produce enough hydrogen to make even a noticeable difference?

Nexagen
07-24-2007, 01:14 PM
I hope you realise how much energy is required to produce enough hydrogen to make even a noticeable difference?

I think maybe 10-15 Amps using 12 Volts and a good electrolyte like vinegar or salt could produce good amounts of HHO gas.

The energy would come from the alternator so that it recharges the battery at a fast enough rate so that it wont get completely discharged. Good batteries like Optima Yellowtop comes to mind for this application...

I think that realistically I can see mileage gains of 25% if enough hydrogen is produced.

vgames33
07-24-2007, 01:16 PM
I do believe that it takes more electrical energy to seperate water than can be recovered by burning the oxygen and hydrogen that are created.

Nexagen
07-24-2007, 01:29 PM
I do believe that it takes more electrical energy to seperate water than can be recovered by burning the oxygen and hydrogen that are created.

That's a good point... If that is the case why not buy a small foldable solar panel and mount it on your cars dash then have it charge the battery. This and the alternator would provide enough electricity for the battery to not drain out.

The solar panel can then have the wires run to the battery.

MagicRat
07-24-2007, 09:32 PM
That's a good point... If that is the case why not buy a small foldable solar panel and mount it on your cars dash then have it charge the battery. This and the alternator would provide enough electricity for the battery to not drain out.

The solar panel can then have the wires run to the battery.
You would need a BIG solar panel (bigger than your car) to produce the 10-15 amps you say you require to generate the hydrogen as you drive.

Using the battery to do so sounds silly because you would drain it quickly, leaving you with a car you could not restart until the solar panel recharges it.

As stated above, relying on the alternator is even worse, because you have a net energy loss in the system, negating the purpose of this procedure.

UncleBob
07-24-2007, 10:49 PM
Methane is much easier to produce compared to hydrogen. No batteries required

Hudson
07-24-2007, 11:09 PM
"Mythbusters" busted this myth. You can actually power an internal combustion engine on pure hydrogen, but making hydrogen will take more energy than you will gain.

Moppie
07-25-2007, 12:58 AM
Methane is much easier to produce compared to hydrogen. No batteries required


All you need is some bio mass, something to crush it, and something to process it.
Cows are very effective, so are sheep.

Bootsgamer
07-25-2007, 01:17 AM
My car is powerd by hamsters running on wheels.

UncleBob
07-25-2007, 01:25 AM
All you need is some bio mass, something to crush it, and something to process it.
Cows are very effective, so are sheep.

I was thinking burrito's and a attachable tube before you get into the car.....but if you want to get complex and stuff....have at it :D

KiwiBacon
07-25-2007, 01:35 AM
That's a good point... If that is the case why not buy a small foldable solar panel and mount it on your cars dash then have it charge the battery. This and the alternator would provide enough electricity for the battery to not drain out.

The solar panel can then have the wires run to the battery.

By the time you've split hydrogen from water and burnt it again to provide shaft power, you'll be getting back about 10% of the energy you put in as electricity.
That and the process is too slow to run a car (unless you've got an electrolysis plant the size of your house).

Plugging the solar panel right into an electric motor hooked to your driveshaft would be much more efficient. But the gains from that will still be pitiful.
You'll get at the most 500 watts from a square meter of solar panel. You car needs probably 15,000 watts to maintain 100km/h on a level road.

TD on call
12-01-2007, 07:49 PM
Is anyone actually trying this of just reading and talking about it. I keep looking for someone who is useing a hydrogen generator. I guess they don't work or the people useing them would tell us.

G.A.S.
12-01-2007, 09:21 PM
read this tid bit of infromation.
beings we are mechanics/techs, this will be an interesting bit of reading for some of you.
I restore antique tractors and use this process all the time and it works great.
http://royalcrossfarm.com/electrolysis.htm

KiwiBacon
12-01-2007, 10:51 PM
read this tid bit of infromation.
beings we are mechanics/techs, this will be an interesting bit of reading for some of you.
I restore antique tractors and use this process all the time and it works great.
http://royalcrossfarm.com/electrolysis.htm

I use a similar electrolysis method to also clean up rusted parts. For that it works quite well. But alas, for running a car it is completely useless.

mikasf
12-03-2007, 09:28 AM
In fact it is not useless. And you can make your HHO simply by yourself from distilled water, and get 10-50 % more mpg using this method. Easy and simple. You don't need much hydrogen to use as a hybrid fuel to your car's engine, and it _does_ increase your mileage. It also cleans your engine while burning.

Have you tried it? Many others have, and it seems to work. Really.

http://mikasf.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/

GreyGoose006
12-03-2007, 03:48 PM
enough of this nonsense already...

look, if any of this cr@p actually worked, it would be on every production car made.
there used to be at least a shred of convincability to the conspiracy theories of the govt not backing fuel economy research, and keeping fuel economy low, but in todays age of $3.00+ a gallon gas, this all goes out the window.

just look at all the major manufacturers.
ford, honda, chevy, toyota... they all have hybrids and are researching ways to get better mileage from one gallon of gas/diesel.

how about this idea...
we put a big mirror on the back of the car and reflect the headlights of other cars backwards to gain a little bit of thrust.

or we could all fart into tubes all day long and store the energy and burn it.

ect.

all these outlandish ideas are cr@p...


the real secret in fuel economy is loosing weight and driving less.
after all, cars burn zero gas when parked.

KiwiBacon
12-03-2007, 06:34 PM
In fact it is not useless. And you can make your HHO simply by yourself from distilled water, and get 10-50 % more mpg using this method. Easy and simple. You don't need much hydrogen to use as a hybrid fuel to your car's engine, and it _does_ increase your mileage. It also cleans your engine while burning.

Have you tried it? Many others have, and it seems to work. Really.

http://mikasf.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/


HHO does not exist. The products of electrolysing water are hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2).
Anyone who claims the have a device which produces HHO can be quickly and accurately dismissed as a quack.

The rate that hydrogen and oxygen are produced by electrolysis is soo slow that it cannot affect the running of a car engine at all.
Exactly what effect do you think a hydrogen bubble the size of a flys fart in every cubic metre of air will have?

Are you a vendor of such a system?

curtis73
12-03-2007, 11:40 PM
HHO does not exist. The products of electrolysing water are hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2).
Anyone who claims the have a device which produces HHO can be quickly and accurately dismissed as a quack.



Amen to that. I want to vomit every time I see those phony links to a Fox News story about HHO.

You can use electrolysis to supplement your gasoline intake a tiny bit... I mean on the order of 1/10,000 of the intake volume, but you have to understand that an alternator can take up to 1 hp per every 15 amps it creates. 15 amps won't make nearly enough hydrogen to make a difference, but it WILL drag down the alternator and spoil any fuel mileage gains you might have created; not to mention dramatically reducing the service life of your charging system. There is no free energy, so simpler is better. Any time you add on another system, you are wasting more energy than you're gaining. Its a chemical fact.

A 15 amp solar panel these days is about 5' x 10', weighs somewhere around 100 lbs, and costs in the neighborhood of $2000. So, until you spend the money on the panels, mount them to the car, wire them in, and design and buy your hydrogen system, you'll be big bucks into a system that only works in bright direct sunlight and doesn't provide nearly enough hydrogen to notice any difference. Plus, I would imagine that a 50 square foot sail on top of your car can't be good for mileage either.

The reason its not done is because it CAN'T be done... not with current technology. The internet is so full of this free-energy, government conspiracy, youtube nonsense that it makes me want to learn how to write a computer virus so I can shut youtube and FoxNews down. I'm all for government conspiracies, but hydrogen technology is not being kept down by snipers and men in black suits, its good old fashioned physical laws, like the law of conservation of energy. Can't get around that one. Its a biggie.

mikasf
12-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Yeah, I know your "one and only" thruths and chemical laws. And I know that this is very difficult to believe. What if you think about it on that side:

It uses energy, which comes from gasoline, to separate much, much more powerful fuel, hydrogen, from water. What would we get with hydrogen? Less temperature losses, much leaner mixture in the engine, less friction losses with cleaner engine. I believe that these are the ways that make the difference in fuel economy, not just the power of hydrogen vapor.

Hydrogen is most powerful fuel in the world, or can you deny that too? It means that you don't need it much to make a difference.

I am _not_ saying that the energy is coming out of nowhere. It is about using the energy inside of gasoline, smarter, to create hydrogen. And think about it, why would anyone write 400 pages full of crap, just to get good laughs about people's stupidness? Who are these over hundred people who have signed their name above it? And when did I mention any solar panels?

Yes. I have read the books. I also didn't believe it earlier. Try it.

beef_bourito
12-04-2007, 12:17 PM
hydrogen DOES have alot of energy. but the main problem with your theory is that the product of hydrogen combustion is water. so you take water, extract hydrogen, burn the hydrogen and end up with water. even in a 100% efficient process (which electrolysis is NOT) you would end up with 0 energy gained, 0 lost. that means that in order to make a system that works, you need to develop a machine that would be able to make this process more than 100% efficient, meaning you're getting more energy out than you put in, meaning you've just created perpetual motion.

using hydrogen to power cars, IMO, is a terrible idea until we find a way to extract it efficiently. electrolysis won't work because we might as well be using electric cars because they'll be more efficient (less energy lost from the generators to the cars). so i think people need to forget this whole thing until someone finds some technology that makes it better than electric, which'll be damn hard to do.

mikasf
12-04-2007, 12:35 PM
...

I am not going to make a perpetual motion. I am trying to tell you that we aren't using all the energy that's inside gasoline. Great part of it comes out of the exhaust pipes, uselessly. IF we would convert the energy of fuel, into electric power, and so on into a hydrogen, we would get more power instead of high temperatures and friction. That is why this system saves fuel.

beef_bourito
12-04-2007, 12:47 PM
i just checked out that website about the electrolysis machine. i can't believe anyone believes that bullshit. hmm, i'm going to put a bottle of water and tubes under my hood and save an assload of money.

by the way, they're right when they say they're producing HHO gas, know why? because that's WATER, HHO = H2O. and that water is just boiling off because of the low pressure from the vacuum line.

the thing that just screams scam to me is the fact that the whole web page looks like one giant infomercial.... i guess that's how they make money. the same people who would buy stuff from an infomercial would probably fall for this.

texan
12-04-2007, 02:03 PM
mikasf- You are spamming this site with nonsense, therefore you are banned.

Steel
12-04-2007, 04:26 PM
I love when people who have absolutley NO experience with chemistry and thermodynamics spout off this bullshit as gospel. And they defend it to the grave despite being completly stupid about the subject.

In thermo, you can't win, and you can't even break even. People who are about this "make hydrogen from water and burn it!" dont understand a simple concept, even if you spell it out for them.

Even the ones who want to produce hydrogen gas is mass quantities to put in bottles to run cars on have NO clue how dangerous pressurized liquid hydrogen is, not to mention the fact that it diffuses through any container, i.e. it leaks out of EVERYTHING!

KiwiBacon
12-04-2007, 06:54 PM
In thermo, you can't win, and you can't even break even.

You can break even if you get to 0 degrees kelvin.
But getting there is a problem.

Thanks to the mod who banned that muppet.

GreyGoose006
12-04-2007, 06:56 PM
imo, the best arguement against a "hydrogen economy" is more or less what bourito said...

hydrogen comes from water.
when you burn hydrogen, you get water.

perpetual motion is impossible, so therefore, a hydrogen economy is (wait for it...)
impossible.

texan
12-04-2007, 07:31 PM
imo, the best arguement against a "hydrogen economy" is more or less what bourito said...

hydrogen comes from water.
when you burn hydrogen, you get water.

perpetual motion is impossible, so therefore, a hydrogen economy is (wait for it...)
impossible.


Actually one thing has nothing to do with the other. Not to get way off topic here, but a hydrogen economy is completely plausable given that the Earth is not a closed energy system. There is enough energy in the form of light alone to power all our needs a million times over, that includes cracking all the water into fuel we could ever want.

The trick is to stop digging up stored chemical energy and start using a small fraction of what currently bounces off our planet to supply our needs.

beef_bourito
12-04-2007, 09:12 PM
the problem is that we'll have to make the extraction of hydrogen, transportation, etc. more efficient than electric vehicles in order to make it worthwhile. i just don't see it happening.

KiwiBacon
12-04-2007, 11:39 PM
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's simply a storage medium. Just like a battery.

If hydrogen can provide a greater energy density than a competing battery then it'll become widespread. If it can't then it'll remain the source of urban myths and legends. Just like the 100mpg carburettor.:screwy:

Moppie
12-05-2007, 01:23 AM
mikasf- You are spamming this site with nonsense, therefore you are banned.


Now thats a come back!

So where have you been hiding Tex?

Steel
12-05-2007, 12:40 PM
You can break even if you get to 0 degrees kelvin.
But getting there is a problem.

Thanks to the mod who banned that muppet.

To that i say, It's impossible to get to 0*K, so nyah! We've gotten close that. The best way is to find my ex and stick a thermometer in her heart when you mention my name :D

texan
12-05-2007, 01:20 PM
Now thats a come back!

So where have you been hiding Tex?

Oh, here and there. It's been a couple of years though hasn't it? I still pop in here once in a while, I just usually don't find anything to post to.

KiwiBacon
12-05-2007, 06:20 PM
To that i say, It's impossible to get to 0*K, so nyah! We've gotten close that. The best way is to find my ex and stick a thermometer in her heart when you mention my name :D

Now that's cold.

Moppie
12-05-2007, 11:08 PM
Oh, here and there. It's been a couple of years though hasn't it? I still pop in here once in a while, I just usually don't find anything to post to.


I'm spending less time in here to, especialy since getting a Prelude. The damn things is as reliable as it is boring.
Have you bumbed into Fritz in your travels? I lost contact with him after PH shut down.

tomj76
07-20-2009, 12:13 PM
I realize that this is a dead thread, but I wanted to make a couple of points.

1) Themodynamics tell you that the combustion cycle is NEVER 100% efficient. In fact, there is about 2-3x more chemical energy consumed than the mechanical energy output by the engine.

2) Electromagnetics tells you that it is a practical impossibility for 100% efficiency in converting that energy to electricity.

3) It has already been mentioned that electrolosis is not even close to 100% efficient in breaking the energy bonds of the hydrogen and oxygen in the water. It's true that hydrogen and oxygen store the energy "chemically" until the hydrogen is burnt and returned to a water molecule. However, the conversion to mechanical energy is subject to the same thermodynamic limits (~30%) due to the combustion cycle.

4) Hydrogen is not necessarily the best way to store energy. While it is advantageous from when measured as stored energy per unit mass (i.e J/kg), it is not advantageous when you consider the stored energy per unit volume, even if you use liquid hydrogen. In addition liquid hydrogen requires a very heavy storage tank due to it's volitility and the extreme vapor pressure at ambient temperatures (i.e. easily over 1000 psi at temperatures up to 50 deg C).

In conclusion, if you burn 1 Joule of fuel to create 0.3 J of mechanical energy, then convert that to 0.25 J of electricity that is then used to store 0.1 J of chemical engergy stored in they hydrogen, you've just lost 0.9 J of energy to get back to where you started.

Hydrogen is also less safe than other fuels such as gasoline and kerosene. Both of these fuels are diffcuilt to ignite when compared to hydrogen. Gasoline will only burn when the air/fuel mixture is within a very narrow range, something like 5%-10%. However hydrogen will combust over a very wide range (4%-70%), making leaks very dangerous. Hydrogen flames are not normally visible. Further complicating hydrogen saftey is the fact that metal exposed to hydrogen becomes brittle. Because hydrogen is the smallest atom, it will diffuse through any other material used to contain it. Just as a helium ballon deflates over time as the helium leaks between the rubber molecules of the balloon, hydrogen will diffuse through any containment material, requiring new safety precautions in tankers and pipelines that carry it. Of course, since hydrogen is a gas at standard temperature and pressure conditions, tank ruptures cannot be contained, and any ignition of a leaking containment will often result in explosive combustion of the hydrogen, although this danger is somewhat reduced since leaks will be more likely disburse since hydrogen is lighter than air.

Given these facts, not only is it wasteful and counterproductive to install a hydrogen device in your car, it's potentially dangerous if the device is actually capable of producing significant hydrogen.

curtis73
07-21-2009, 08:31 PM
I fully agree on all points, and you bring up some very good tech.

But... I'm going to close this one because this is a thread I don't want coming back to haunt me :)

But... I'm also making it a sticky so it hangs around long enough for folks to read.

Add your comment to this topic!